NEWS: Democrats Put Right to Choose On the Table

POLITICS: Democrats Put Right to Choose On the Table

The two candidates for head of the Democratic National Committee are sharply divided on what used to be the most solid plank of the party platform, support for abortion rights. Former Presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean of Vermont is solidly in support of the right to choose. Former Representative Tim Roemer of Indiana is more interested in winning elections between the coasts.

Especially troubling for supporters of abortion rights is the support of party heavyweights.

In case you are wondering, this is politician speak for throwing a group to the wolves. This may be seen as a shift for the Democratic Party away from supporting divisive special interests at any cost and towards getting elected at any cost. What is especially futile about the party abandoning its principles on this point is that it did not lose the recent national election over abortion rights. John Kerry was not a particularly strong advocate of abortion rights and George W. Bush is not a particularly determined foe of them. The question for other special interests groups who have largely driven the party has to be: who's next?

Indeed.

Interesting I remeber about 2-4 years ago a similar event occuring on the Republican side. I dont think it dented much, and I doubt this will have any permenate effects.

i wonder if bush would send his navy after our abortion boat if we send it there.

So *that's* what a right wing blogger circle jerk looks like.

How about we wait and see who gets control of the DNC and what policy is set before we start saying things like 'abandoning its principles'...m'kay?

Shit like this is why the Democrats did so poorly in the election - not their stance on the issues, but the fact that their commitment to anything besides the idea of winning and preserving their personal power is so tenuous as to be almost nonexistent.

If the Democrats decide to be nothing more than a cheap, watered-down imitation of the goddamn Republicans, for the sole purpose of pandering to right-wingers who will never vote for them, they can count on losing my vote to a third party - not the attention whore Nader, but a party/candidate with a clear commitment to progressive ideals. And for those who would cry "wasted vote," my vote is wasted more when cast for an established party with no real conviction to the ideals I stand for, than when cast for a third party that actually knows what it stands for and is trying to build itself into a viable force for change.

I'm saying this as someone who swallowed his vomit and voted for Kerry this time around because so much was at stake during this election. I was led to believe that the Dems were committed to selecting a candidate this time around who was committed to winning and at least progressive enough to be acceptable. What I got instead was a sniveling prick with the political backbone of a bowl of cottage cheese and the charisma to match, who sat on millions of dollars of campaign money that he could have used to win.

If the Dems put this anti-choice idiot in as chairman of the party, I'm out.

this is the last straw. We've had wishy- washy candidates and spokesmen for years. the democrats need to stand up for something (aside from the raised fist, grassroots "vote for mediocrity" campaigns that democras always have)!

now on the flipside, I've got lots of knitting needles laying around- guess it's time to make some money.

Then my allegiance and vote is "on the table" too.

However, I would sharply contend with Lasswell's reference to "the two candidates". As far as I understand there are dozens of candidates for the DNC chairmanship, and I've never heard of this guy before today's Daily Kos entry. I think Lasswell's just looking to get angry responses from the SG libs toward the Democratic party.

Other candidates for the DNC chairmanship

Harry Reid
Simon Rosenberg
Donnie Fowler
James Blanchard.

MyDD has a great cattle call up.

As usual, Lasswell's research and factchecking are among the best.

[Edited on Dec 23, 2004 by Keith]

Eh? Not only am I *not* right-wing, I'm pro-choice. Patrick is to my right, but he's pro-choice too. We both think the Democrats should stick to their pro-choice principles and fight the anti-choice GOP. If that's what makes up a right-wing circle jerk, what does it mean when Sean Hannity goes bowling on the air with Rush Limbaugh?

The editorializing of your news posts lead me towards the 'if it looks like a duck' conclusion that you were right leaning. Not really the point though. The point is that the DNC is still in the process of defining an abortion policy for 06 and 08. It's premature to say ( or agree to ) the statement that the Dems are abandoning their principles. If they change their stance significantly, then yes, I'll agree it's a major fuck up but it's far from a foregone conclusion.

2 dumbasses bowling

[Edited on Dec 23, 2004 3:55PM]

I just get tired of other people's dismissive labels. You would, too, if you didn't fit in a box. I'm a person whose opinions are all over the place. I'm not a prop in your own private political fantasy-land.

National Review magazine quoted me as a "liberal" today. And I was criticized in the same magazine last week because I supposedly "troll the pages of the Guardian looking for anti-Bush hit pieces.".

Whatever. Jesus.

I'm a political independent. But I guess I'm also a rorshach test. If you think I'm liberal, you're surely right-wing. And if you think I'm conservative, you're definitely a leftist.

It's funny 'cause it's true...

I'm pretty sure Glenn Reynolds wouldn't have you guest blogging if you were anything close to what 90% of people who care about such things would call a liberal. Being pro-choice and not uptight about drugs does not a liberal make. A decent human being, maybe, but not necessarily a liberal.

You may be a P.J. O'Rourke [or is it "South Park Republican"?] conservative, but you're still a conservative in most people's eyes.


[Edited on Dec 23, 2004 by Keith]

Dude, I'm not a liberal.

Around here, yes. In general, it just depends. When Salon quotes me I'm a "conservative ." When NR quotes me, I'm a "liberal."

Try to understand that there are more than two political points of view in this country. The left-right, red-blue dichotomy is a reductionist caricature. Roughly a third of American voters are registered Independent these days, and that's for a reason.

But Michael, if you can't be hysterically denounced, you are not saying anything of substance. Because of your irritating habit of writing works of consequence, you must be denounced. Denial is more important than understanding.

Have you watched Life of Brian lately. That movie just keeps getting better with age. Pretty soon they're going to be saying you're a member of the Judean People's Front!

NEWSFLASH

politicians' views may vary

Film at 11!

/NEWSFLASH

Well, a single-payer system is at least vaguely socialist. I'm all in favor of universal health care, and I think it's ridiculous that we don't have it. But I'd like it to be the least statist system possible that still guarantees access for everybody. Monopoly=bad.

Obviously each country has its own political center. I am more or less in the American center, meaning I'm to the right of the Democrats and to the left of the Republicans. (But sometimes I'm to the left of the Democrats. I think God should be struck from the Pledge of Allegiance and gays should get married if they want to.)

I don't think there is any such thing as a worldwide political center. If there is, we could argue about what it is forever. In our own context it's obvious. A centrist is someone who is politically to the right of one half of the country and to the left of the other half (give or take a few percentage points.). In other words - the swing voters.

I love it when Democrats talk about principles. Love it.

As for this proposal to be flexible on abortion? It's bullshit, deception. I dont buy it for a second.

No one has yet responded to the fairly obvious observation that there are more than two candidates for the DNC chairmanship.

And as I see it, the chairmanship contest is not between "liberal" and "centrist" Democrats, but between reform and status quo.

So the ploy is to pick up a few voters who believe them and to lose a few voters who believe them.

Good stategy.

I flirted with the hypothetical situation that having the Dems shift right would benefit them. It won't in my opinion. Similarity with the right only strengthens the right and pisses off the left.

I would spend my time trying to educate the masses on the larger percentage of politics besides the moral equation. Focus on everything the right screws up, like spending, healthcare and social services, and defense. Focus on their mistakes. Convince people that the cost of putting all your eggs into the right because they don't want to see dudes kissing isn't worth losing the nation.

I have to disagree with the assertion that a monopoly is always bad. Sometimes a monopoly is the most efficient way to provide a good or service. Of course, there is always the risk that a company will exploit its monopoly to gouge people, but as long as a monopoly is sufficiently regulated, this can be avoided. And if the monopoly is directly administered by the government, the people running it (or the people who appoint them) are publicly accountable. In the case of a state-run single payer system, I think economies of scale would make it work more efficiently than the system we currently have in place, and a single payer system would also allow for standardization and simplification of procedures, paperwork, etc., which would further increase efficiency.

Well, you would qualify as a centrist in relation to the two parties, but I'm not so sure that you would in relation to the American political system as a whole. From my perspective, the Dems don't represent the left as well as the Repubs represent the right. Of course, that's just my perspective, but I think it's supported by facts like the story this thread derives from.

Oh, and hearing that you would like to see the pledge restored to its original god-free greatness makes me happy, since there are so precious few of us. Especially in Texas...

i'm not touching this one with a ten foot pole....